PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue No. 8 (2019)
-
„OPEN FOR CONSERVATION”: LIVE EXPERIENCES
Cobau Andreina Costanzi79-88
-
THE ETHICAL PROBLEMS OF ARCHITECTURAL RECONSTRUCTION – HUNGARIAN CASE STUDIES
Ádám Arnóth1-8
-
ON PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVITY
Wolfgang Baatz9-14
-
REFLECTION ON CONSERVATION-RESTORATION PRACTICE TODAY. A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
Stefan Belishki, Susan Corr15-28
-
AFTER BRANDI – UMBERTO BALDINI AND THE MODERN THEORY OF CONSERVATION-RESTORATION IN ITALY
Giorgio Bonsanti29-36
-
PROFESSIONAL INTERDISCIPLINARY POSITION AND ROLE OF ACADEMIC CONSERVATOR-RESTORERS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Methodical symbiosis and transdisciplinary cooperation using the example of the rebuilding and conservation of two Ottoman palaces in Istanbul
Jörg Breitenfeldt37-42
-
INTEGRATION OF BRANDI’S THEORY IN THE CONTEXT OF EASTERN RELIGIONS AND CULTURES
Francesca Capanna43-52
-
RETHINKING MAIURI: ENHANCEMENT OF STUCCO FINDINGS FROM THE HERCULANEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARKq
Filippo Edoardo Capasso, Francesca Castiello, Simona Dichiara, Manuel Giandomenico, Natalie Iacopino, Erika Maddalena, Camilla Mauri, Sokol Muca, Mariagiulia Roscigno, Sofia Schiattone53-64
-
THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CONSERVATION DATA FOR STUCCO ARTIFACTS
Filippo Edoardo Capasso, Francesca Castiello, Simona Dichiara, Manuel Giandomenico, Natalie Iacopino, Erika Maddalena, Camilla Mauri, Sokol Muca, Mariagiulia Roscigno, Sofia Schiattone65-72
-
THE STUCCO DECORATION OF THE MONUMENTAL ARCH ON THE DECUMANUS MAXIMUS AT HERCULANEUM
Marina Caso73-78
-
“CONSERVATION VERSUS RECONSTRUCTION.” DO WE NEED OTHER OR NEW CRITERIA FOR CONSERVING ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES OF THE 20THCENTURY?
Thomas Danzl89-102
-
THE CONSERVATION-RESTORATION OF ARCHITECTURAL STATUARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCULPTURE AND ARCHITECTURE
Camille De Clercq, Judy De Roy103-112
-
LUCIO FONTANA AND ARCHITECTURE
Barbara Ferriani113-122
-
AWARENESS OF MATERIALITY IN TIME AND CONDITION. THOUGHTS ON THE RELATION BETWEEN ART HISTORY AND CONSERVATION
Andreas Huth, Katharine Stahlbuhk123-138
-
„BEFORE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW WE THINK”
Dörthe Jakobs139-150
-
THE TEMPLE OF EPICURIOUS APOLLO AT BASSAE: PRESERVE THE STONE OR UNCOVER ITS TRUE NATURE?
Eva Kapadoukaki, Michail Soumas151-158
-
GIOTTO’S STIGMATIZATION OF SAINT FRANCIS: AN APPROACH FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IMAGE
Maria Rosa Lanfranchi159-174
-
ETHICS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF RESTORING HISTORICAL STONE MONUMENTS
Jadwiga W. Łukaszewicz175-184
-
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
Helia Marcal185-210
-
VIRTUAL CONSERVATION-RESTORATION VS. ACTUAL CONSERVATION-RESTORATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF FRAGMENTARY ARTEFACTS: THE CASE STUDY FRESCOES FROM SYBARIS - COPIA (ITALY)
Sokol Muca211-222
-
CONSERVATION-RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION SCIENCE - THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
Mechthild Noll-Minor223-238
-
QUALITY PARAMETERS IN CONSERVATION-RESTORATION CHOICES – THE CASE OF THE TOWER OF THE WINDS IN ATHENS
Maria Papadopoulou, Andromache Gazi239-254
-
ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THE CONSERVATION OF THE WALL PAINTINGS OF CHAPEL 11 AT THE SACRO MONTE DI VARALLO
Francesca Piqué, Giacinta Jean255-268
-
UNITÉ DE DOCTRINE – CONTINGENCY OF PRACTICE? TOWARDS A RE-READING OF TWENTIETH CENTURY PRINCIPLES OF BUILDING HERITAGE CONSERVATION
Andreas Putz269-280
-
THE VOICE OF CONSERVATION-RESTORATION ON MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESTORATION PROJECTS
Tanja Røskar281-290
-
CONSERVATION ETHICS TODAY: ARE OUR CONSERVATION-RESTORATION THEORIES AND PRACTICE READY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY? INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO SOME CENTRAL ISSUES
Ursula Schädler-Saub291-300
-
DEALING WITH AUTHENTICITY IN THE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WALL PAINTINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES
Ursula Schädler-Saub301-324
-
THE CONSERVATOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DETERIORATION OF MONUMENTS
Bogusław Szmygin325-333
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
Abstract
Nowadays, heritage conservators are required to have not only a wide variety of technical but also social and human skills. The shift from a material-based conservation to an approach that focuses on subjects instead of objects (Muñoz Viñas, 2005, p. 147) is a structural approach in contemporary theories of conservation. This tendency towards subjectivity created many possibilities by exposing the multiple perspectives that surround a conservation object. At the same time, it made very clear that conservation objects are contextual and contingent (Clavir, 2009, p. 141). This dichotomy between the tangible and intangible features of a conservation object, however, has been successively overlooked in most conservation endeavours. Prior to the conservation decision-making, institutions usually identified the main stakeholders, with publics and communities being part of that sphere together with owners, artists, and conservators, among others. The decision-making process, however, does not engage with communities in practice. This situation is very problematic for the conservation of cultural heritage objects in general, but it becomes truly hazardous for the preservation of cultural heritage with strong intangible features, such as social artistic practices, ethnographic objects, public art, participatory or performance art or even built heritage, which necessarily involves strong cooperation with communities and artists. After all, to whom are conservators preserving cultural heritage? What is the purpose of conserving cultural heritage for “future generations” if “present generations” are not called to decide in that process? This paper attempts to reflect upon these questions through histories around two buildings in Lisbon that had relevant roles during the Portuguese dictatorship (1933-1974).
Keywords:
References
AIC (1994). Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice, The Association (AIC). Available at: http://www.conservation-us.org/our-organizations/association-(aic)/governance/code-of-ethics-and-guidelines-for-practice/code-of-ethics-and-guidelines-for-practice-(html)#.W8XzemhKiUk (accessed in 12.09.2018)
AIC (2018). Sustainability Committee, Publication & Resources. Available at: http://www.conservation-us.org/specialty-topics/sustainability#.W8WuNGhKiUk (accessed in 12.09.2018)
AICCM (2002). Code of Ethics and Code of Practice. Available at: https://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AICCMBusinessDocs/CODE%20OF%20ETHICS%20AND%20CODE%20OF%20PRACTICE%20Australian%20Institute%20for%20conservation%20of%20Cultural%20Material.pdf (accessed in 12.09.2018)
Ashley-Smith, Jonathan (1999). Risk Assessment for Object conservation. London: Butterworth-Heinemann
Ashley-Smith, Jonathan (2017). A role for bespoke codes of ethics. In Bridgland, Janet (ed.), ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference Preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, ed., art. 1901. Paris: The International Council of Museums.
Australia ICOMOS (2013 [1981]). Burra Charter, Australia Charter for the conservation of Places of Cultural Interest. Burra: ICOMOS.
Australia ICOMOS (2013). Practice Note. Understanding and assessing cultural significance, Version 1: November. Burra: ICOMOS. Available at: http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Note_Understanding-and-assessing-cultural-significance.pdf (accessed in 18.08.2017).
Avrami, Erica (2009). Heritage, Values, and Sustainability. In Richmond, Alison; Bracker, Alison (ed.): Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 184-196, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Avrami, Erica; Randall Manson; and Marta de la Torre (ed.) (2000). Values and Heritage conservation. Research Report, Los Angeles: The Getty Foundation.
Barrett, Jennifer (2012). Museums and the Public Sphere, West Sussex: Wiley.
Berducou, Marie (2007). Cultural heritage values and conservation: a historical perspective. In Varoli-Piazza, R. (ed.), Sharing conservation Decisions, Rome: ICCROM.
Boaventura, Inês (2014). Câmara de Lisboa apresentou queixa pelo roubo de placa da antiga sede da PIDE. In Público (2 April 2014, 13:11). Available at: https://www.publico.pt/2014/04/02/local/noticia/ camara-de-lisboa-apresentou-queixa-pelo-roubo-de-placa-da-antiga-sede-da-pide-1630701 (accessed in 17.02.2017).
Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (2009). Introduction. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.): Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. i-xvii, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
CAC and CAPC (2010). Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice of the Canadian Association for conservation of Cultural Property and of the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators. Available at: http://www.cac-accr.ca (accessed in 17.02.2017).
Cane, Simon (2009). Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of conservation as a Cultural Construct. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 163-176, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Clavir, Miriam (1994). Preserving Conceptual Integrity: Ethics and Theory in Preventive conservation. In Preprints, IIC Congress, Preventive conservation: Practice, Theory and Research, Sept 12-16, p. 53-57.
Clavir, Miriam (2009). Conservation and Cultural Significance. In Bracker, Alison; Richmond, Alison (ed.) Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, p. 139-149, London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
de Silva, Megan & Henderson, Jane (2011). Sustainability in conservation practice. Journal of the Institute of conservation 34 (1), p. 5-15.
Dicks, Bella (2000). Heritage, Place and Community. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.
ECCO (2003). E.C.C.O. Professional Guidelines (II). Available at: http://www.encore-edu.org/ecco2.html (accessed in 17.02.2017).
Fraser, Nancy (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25/26, p. 56–80.
Fraser, Nancy (2001). Recognition without ethics?. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–3), p. 21–42.
Fraser, Nancy (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation. In Fraser, N.; Honneth, A. (eds.) Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange, Verso: New York.
Geismar, Haidy (2015). Anthropology and Heritage Regimes. Annual Review of Anthropology 44(1), p. 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214- 014217
Guillaume, Marc ([1980] 2003). La Politique du patrimoine, Paris: Editions Galilée.
Habermas, Jürgen (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article, P. U. Hohendahl (trans.). New German Critique 3, 1964, p. 45–8.
Haldrup, Michael & Bærenholdt, Jørgen Ole (2015). Heritage as Performance. In Waterton, E.; Watson, S. (ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, 52-68. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harvey, David C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7 (4), p. 319–38.
Henderson, Jane & Nakamoto, Tanya (2016). Dialogue in conservation decision-making. Studies in conservation 61(2), p. 67–78 (doi: 10.1080/00393630.2016.1183106).
ICOM (1984). The Conservator-Restorer: a Definition of the Profession. Available at: http://www.icom-cc.org/47/#.UXCITo5pugE (accessed in 10.08.2017).
ICOM-CC (2008) Terminology to Characterize the conservation of Tangible Cultural Heritage. Available at: http://www.icom-cc.org/242/about-icom- cc/what-is-conservation/#.Vz9ZBSN97mE (accessed in 20.10.2016).
ICOMOS (1964). International Charter for the conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice charter) [online]. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/charters/ venice_e.pdf (accessed in 04.02.2015).
ICOMOS (1994). Nara Document on Authenticity [online]. Available at: http://www. icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf (accessed in 04.02.2015).
ICOMOS (1996). Principles for the recording of monuments, groups of buildings and sites. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/charters/archives-e.pdf (accessed in 04.02.2015).
ICOMOS (2000). Principles for the conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage (The Krakow Charter). Available at: http://smartheritage.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/03/KRAKOV-CHARTER-2000.pdf (accessed in 14.08.2017).
Taylor, Joel (2013). Intergenerational justice: A useful perspective for heritage conservation. CeROArt [online], Cultures of conservation. Available at: http://ceroart.revues.org/3510 (accessed 21.10.2016).
Taylor, Joel (2015). Embodiment unbound: Moving beyond divisions in the understanding and practice of heritage conservation. Studies in conservation, 60 (1), p. 65-77.
Kapelouzou, Iris (2012). The Inherent Sharing of conservation Decisions. Studies in conservation, 57 (3), p. 172-182.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara (2004). Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. Museum International 221-222, 56 (1-2), p. 52-65.
Machuca, Jesús Antonio (2013). Challenges for Anthropological Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage. In Arizpe, L.; Amescua C. (ed) Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage, New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer, p. 57-70. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00855-4_5
Marçal, Hélia & Macedo, Rita (2017). From the periphery to the centre of decision: community engagement and justice in conservation decision-making. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference Preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, Paris: The International Council of Museums.
Marçal, Hélia; Macedo, Rita & Duarte, António Manuel (2014). The inevitable subjective nature of conservation: Psychological insights on the process of decision-making. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 17th Triennial Conference Preprints, Melbourne, 15–19 September, Paris: The International Council of Museums.
Michalski, Stefan (1994). Sharing responsibility for conservation decisions. In Krumbein, W. E.; Brimblecombe, P.; Cosgrove, D. E.; Staniforth, S. (ed.), Durability and change: the science, responsibility, and cost of sustaining cultural heritage, London: Wiley, p. 241-258.
Mitchell, Don (1995). The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85(1), p. 108–33.
Muñoz Viñas, Salvador (2005). Contemporary Theory of conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Museu do Aljube – Resistência e Liberdade (2015). O Museu - Museu Do Aljube – Resistência E Liberdade. Available at: http://www.museudoaljube.pt/omuseu (accessed in 17.02.2017).
Oliveira, Elian (2012). Aljube, uma cadeia política. Unpublished Master Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Available at: https://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/9390 (accessed in 17.02.2017).
Prati et al. (2017). Sustainability in art conservation: A novel bio-based organogel for the cleaning of water sensitive works of art, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 90 (2), DOI: 10.1515/pac-2017-0507
Revez, Maria João (2017). Compatibility matters: Assessing the risks of built heritage cleaning. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lisboa: Universidade Nova de Lisboa..
Riegl, Alois (1996). The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development. In Price, Nicholas; Talley, M. K.; Vaccaro, Alessandra M. (ed.). Historical and Philosophical Issues in the conservation of Cultural Heritage, Malibu: The Getty Institute, p. 69–83.
Scholte, Tatja (2010). Um estudo comparativo sobre a conservaçãção de obras de arte (etnográficas e contemporâneas) de localizaçãção específica. I: Macedo, R.; da Silva, R. H. (ed.). A arte efémera e a conservação: O paradigma da arte contemporânea e dos bens etnográficos, Lisbon: Instituto de Historia da Arte, p. 47- 64.
Sloggett, Robyn (2009). Expanding the conservation canon: Assessing Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Collaborations in conservation. Studies in conservation 54(3), p. 170-183.
Smith, Laurajane (2006). Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge.
Smith, Laurajane & Akagawa, Natsuko (ed.) (2009). Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge.
Taylor, Diana (2003). The Archive and the Repertoire, Durham: Duke University Press.
Taylor, Joel & Cassar, May (2008). Representation and intervention: The symbiotic relationship of conservation and value. In Saunders, D.; Townsend, J. H.; Woodcock, S.: Conservation and Access: Contributions to the London Congress, London, p. 7-11.
UNESCO (1972). World Heritage Convention, Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed in 17.10.2017).
van de Vall, Renée (2005 [1999]). Painful Decisions: Philosophical Consideration on a Decision-making Model. In Hummelen, Ijsbrand; Sillé, Dionne (ed.) Modern Art: Who Cares?, Amsterdam: SBMK, p. 196–200.
Vall, Renée van de, Hölling, H. B.; Scholte, T. I. & Stigter, S. (2011) Reflections on a biographical approach to contemporary art conservation. In Bridgland, J. (ed.) ICOM-CC 16th Triennial Meeting Preprints, Lisbon, 19-23 September, Almada: Criterio.
van Saaze, Vivian (2013). Installation Art and the Museum: Presentation and Conservation of Changing Artworks. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Vecco, Marilena (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, p. 321–324. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006
Walker, Meredith & Marquis-Kyle, Peter (2004). The illustrated Burra Charter: good practice for heritage places. Burwood: ICOMOS.
Waterton, Emma & Smith, Laurajane (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2), p. 4– 15.
Waterton, Emma; Smith, Laurajane & Campbell, Gary (2006). The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4), p. 339–355.
Weyer, Cornelia & Heydenreich, Gunnar (2005 [1999]). From questionnaires to a checklist for dialogues. In Hummelen, Ijsbrand; Sillé, Dionne (ed.), Modern Art: Who Cares?, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, p. 385–88.
Wharton, Glenn (2005). The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art. In Altshuler, Bruce (ed.) Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 163–178.
Article Details
Helia Marcal, Instituto de Historia da Arte, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Integrated researcher, Instituto de Historia da Arte, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
